Saturday, January 8, 2011

Ann Coulter Vs John Stossel on Legalization of Drugs

What we have going here is a debate between Ann Coulter and John Stossell yesterday on the Legalization of drugs. Stossell taking the legalization side and coulter against legalization.

Coulter gets into a particular condition where she could agree with legalization. Being a defender of Mitt Romney and his part in the creation of the MA Health Care System, I can agree with her reasoning. Yet, I am personally against legalization:

7 comments:

I'm not sure. When some drugs were legal in Ireland (and that's just a year ago or something), they found that consumption of strong drugs like LSD decreased. These drugs were very mild though. They had private "head shops" selling them.

You know the funniest thing? These head shops were attacked, often burned down. But NOT by drug opponents, but by... former drug dealers! Yes, the drug dealers who had been driven out of business by the legal head shops. They used to make big money selling LSD, but now no-one wanted to buy LSD anymore (people were just fine buying legal drugs and didn't bother taking the risk it meant to buy illegal ones).

You see, in order to run a business, even a head shop, you need certain skills and knowledges: You need to know accounting, budgeting, marketing... things that the average crack dealer on the street don't have a clue about. And so the former drug dealers started to set these shops on fire.

This was also the reason why the head shops were banned once again in May last year - well, not officially banned, but most substances were banned. There has been a lot of speculation that the reason was that head shops took too much time and resources away from the Police to protect.

It is however, and this is what I am worried about, possible that legalizing some drugs will increase people's tolerance for drug use and lead to more drug legalization. I can't understand those who only want to legalize marijuana and who use the argument that "it's your body, you do what you want with it" - well then, why don't we legalize LSD too? I kind of feel that as soon as marijuana has been legalized, they will take the next step and try get LSD legalized too.

Another question for the "free the weed"-people: Should the police/fire brigade try to stop jumpers? Normally, they do, as you may recall. But since it's the jumper's own decision, and it is his body that gets killed, maybe they shouldn't? What if you try to stop a jumper from jumping by for instance grabbing his leg (or something), should you then get punished for it? I mean, you are technically speaking committing an act of violence, right? You are stopping him from doing what he wants to do with his body. What should the punishment be?

On a theoretical, philosophical level, I can agree it should be a states' rights issue. But in reality, if it is legal in one state, all the other states will get it too. You'd have to set up tariffs between Oregon and California to stop Californian drugs (legal in California) from flooding into Oregon. The US would never be the same again, you wouldn't be able to drive a car from one state to another without having to empty all your baggage to prove to the custom's officers that you weren't bringing any illegal substances to the state. Therefore, practically, it would have to be either illegal or illegal in the entire union of states. Right now, it is illegal. Forcing every state to illegalise drugs is just as wrong as forcing every state to legalize drugs; we should, in that sense, be indifferent between them. Since they are both just as wrong, why change?

I can appreciate the argument that "it's their body", as long as they take responsibility for the consequences. Invariably, we are asked, no required, to provide medical and/or rehab treatment for those who "can't handle" the drugs they take.

I say that, if we legalize drugs, we force all drug users to buy their own insurance to pay for medical and rehab bills. If they take drugs, and don't have insurance, it is up to their families, or charitable organizations to pay, up front, for whatever treatment they require. This includes hospitals as well. Until someone pays for their treatment, they are left in the street.

We'll see how much those who claim responsibility for they do to their bodies are willing to suffer the consequences of their actions. (BTW, I lost a brother to drugs, so I am not speaking of theory here. I know drugs kill!!)

OK... Guys if you think that this is an issue for individual states, then by necessity that requires a repeal of Federal drug laws. (Specifically the Controlled Substances Act.)

Marijuana is perfectly legal for medical purposes in California for example, but because the Federal government continually ignores scientists--going all the way back to their own appointed scientists in 1974, the Shafer Commission who recommended marijuana should be legal--marijuana is still a Schedule I substance by Federal law. So no matter what individual states decide, Federal law still trumps them, until it is repealed.

Anyone who calls themself a "conservative" should not be against the legalization of drugs, if you truly understand what it means to be a conservative. It means we want more personal freedom, more personal responsibility, and LESS GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO OUR LIVES. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are both in favor of marijuana legalization, because they understand what it means to be a conservative. (If you don't believe me, search on YouTube for "Palin Glenn Beck Legalize Marijuana.")

Despite the lies the government has been telling for decades, marijuana cannot kill you. You can smoke or eat as much as you can, as fast as you can, and you will still NEVER get anywhere close to a harmful overdose. You'll pass out stone cold long before you get anywhere close to a level of toxicity that would do your body any harm. BUT, take 15 or 20 aspirin, and it could kill you. Yet aspirin is perfectly legal. Eat 15 raw potatoes and it could kill you. Yes, you heard that right, raw potatoes are far more toxic to humans than marijuana. Pot is less harmful than any FDA approved drug. Yet still, the government must protect me from it. WHAT?

I am free to go bungee jumping, skydiving, rock climbing, can ride a roller coaster, drive a car, I can legally own a gun, own a knife, own bleach, bug spray, whiskey, or thousands of other lethal poisons and devices, but THE NANNY STATE MUST TELL ME I CANNOT PLUCK A HARMLESS PLANT AND SMOKE IT?? Why, because I don't have the right to experience my own consciousness in any way I please, even if I am not harming anyone or anything?? It's OK to get high using alcohol--which could easily kill me if I have a little too much--but it's not OK to get high using something else? That is ludicrous.

The current drug laws are an abomination to our freedoms and our liberty. Period.

//I can appreciate the argument that "it's their body", as long as they take responsibility for the consequences. Invariably, we are asked, no required, to provide medical and/or rehab treatment for those who "can't handle" the drugs they take.//

Bad argument, for two reasons. First, you're already paying something like 20 billion dollars a year for prohibition, and that's only on the federal level. Add in the state costs and you could be talking about as much as 40 billion dollars a year, depending on which state you live in. So, all the phony-baloney, I-don't-want-to-subsidize-it, arguments go out the window right off the bat. Second, accepting the premise that taxpayers have to pay for the uninsured--which is actually less true than you probably think, for a couple reasons--the same argument could be made regarding any number of other products that are already legal. Uninsured and have an accident driving drunk? Taxpayers pick up the tab (again, accepting your premise). Have a heart attack because you're 400 pounds from eating Little Debbie every day of your life while being uninsured? Same as above.

//(BTW, I lost a brother to drugs, so I am not speaking of theory here. I know drugs kill!!)//

So do booze and Little Debbie. What's your point? I lost a friend to a drunk driver one time. I guess that means that if I say that we should bring back the ban on alcohol people should take me seriously instead of pointing out that I'm a fascist. (<--Sarcasm.) Personal anecdotes and experiences are also usually bad arguments.